24fandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Day 8 antagonists
Hierarchy I think Tarin is superior to Samir.-- 06:04, March 10, 2010 (UTC) : I disagree. Why would his superior be in the line of fire so close to Hassan? Moles are usually operatives, not leaders. Samir is definitely it. --MistahWhippy 06:40, March 10, 2010 (UTC) :: We need to find out what question Marcos was answering when he said "Tarin". If Jack asked who was in charge, well, there's our answer. I simply can't remember. 09:52, March 10, 2010 (UTC) ::: I'm fairly sure he just asked for a name. --MistahWhippy 05:50, March 11, 2010 (UTC) :::: In case anybody's still curious, Tarin definitely took several orders from Samir since the post above mine in this discussion. 05:02, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Bolding Leaders Just bringing this up because in Blue Rook's recent edit, he un-bolded the names of the leaders of the groups (i.e. Laitanan, Sergei, Yuri and Samir). I disagree with this, bolding them highlights their significance. What are your guys' take on the matter?--SuperbowserX (talk) 05:46, March 6, 2016 (UTC) : My main concern with bolding names in these lists is twofold: :# it is redundant, since the significant leaders are already given 1 or 0 bullets as determined by their leadership, whereas everyone else in that group is 'bulletted' beneath them, and, :# it will be confusing for a significant portion of our visitors. I would guess that more than 50% of visitors would expect bold-faced names to be for memorable characters, portrayed by recognizable actors (like Mark Sheppard, an established TV actor in numerous other popular series), and who appeared in numerous episodes... but your plan here would skip Sheppard's character Ivan Erwich, and add bold to Mohmar Habib, correct? Habib was not portrayed by a well-known actor, appeared in just a single episode, and in terms of the overall drama of the season was 100% forgettable. In other words, if there did exist a 1-to-1 match between an antagonist's plot significance and their screen-time/viewer-noteworthiness, I would be very comfortable with this idea. But with exceptions like mentioned, it confuses things. : 20:51, March 7, 2016 (UTC) ::I don't think the bold is necessary, but what about the bullets in Brucker and Aruz? Shouldn't there be no bullets to have them at the same level as Laitanan and the others? Thief12 (talk) 12:21, March 11, 2016 (UTC) ::: I'll wait a bit before removing the bold in case there is more feedback. ::: Regarding the bullets, I removed them for Brucker and Weiss, as I agree. For Aruz, and the rest in the "Others" section, I think the bullets should remain, since those groups are unrelated. The bullets visually separate them better in my opinion. 17:59, March 11, 2016 (UTC) :::: I disagree with removing the bold still, since the bold indicates leadership/importance in that group -- not necessarily prominence of actor. As for the bullets, I was aware of the inconsistency of that edit when I made it -- the American sedition group was very small and only contained some 5 people I think. It felt excessive to use the bold name for that. That's also why I did this for the "jonas hodges murder" section in S7. So to recap, removing Brucker and Weiss's bullets are okay, but I still hold that we should bold the group leaders (at least for the leaders who are major antagonists).--SuperbowserX (talk) 19:30, March 11, 2016 (UTC)